"Footprints in the Digital Age" by Will Richardson

"Footprints in the Digital Age" by Will Richardson in Educational Leadership

Will Richardson makes many good points in the article. The most profound, perhaps, is this:

"This may be the first large technological shift in history that's being driven by children. Picture a bus. Your students are standing in the front; most teachers (maybe even you) are in the back, hanging on to the seat straps as the bus careens down the road under the guidance of kids who have never been taught to steer and who are figuring it out as they go."

However, I have to say that Richardson stops just short of the mark. Even though he's talking about "networking, the new literacy," he doesn't mention nings. What's up with that?

Anyhow, what's your reaction to the article?

Connie
http://firesidelearning.ning.com

Tags: 21st+century+learning, digital+learning, educational+leadership, richardson

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Catherine Laguna on November 5, 2008 at 8:35pm

Sorry to get so far away from "Footprints" but I had to share this with you. When I opened my email tonight here was the summary from NSTA about November's Science Scope:

November 2008: Communication Skills

Middle school students are very good at communicating with one another, whether it be through texting, online social networking, or notes passed in class. Unfortunately, their communication skills often fail them when it comes to the classroom. Discover how you can help student develop these critical skills with the strategies in the November 2008 issue of Science Scope. Click on the cover to view the complete November 2008 Table of Contents and read a free article ("Learning to Write and Writing to Learn") from the issue.

The full name of the article includes the subtitle: Refutational Texts and Analytical Rubrics. It made me think of a section to add to our wiki - Misconceptions and Refutations? Well, I'll come up with a better title later... but we could keep track of the misconceptions we had and how we came to understand them through science. It could make for interesting blogging as well.

Thanks for all the links. I love to read this kind of stuff!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will Richardson on November 3, 2008 at 2:42pm

Thanks for linking to the article, Connie. Much appreciated. Your question is one that I struggled with as well, believe it or not. While I like Ning and Facebook and other kind of "out of the box" social networks, I sincerely wonder if they make the networking piece too easy. And that may be because I started doing this seven years ago before any of these sites existed and learned it the "old fashioned way." (Can't believe I just said that.) While I think social networking sites like this one are good for some parts of the process, I also think they miss a lot of the value in rolling your own, so to speak.

I will admit that I'm not totally convinced of that however...just where my brain is landing right now.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Connie Weber on November 4, 2008 at 10:24am

Hello Will,

Thank you for commenting here. I can't believe you said that either... "make the networking piece too easy"? Let's think about that. Do you mean so easy it's easy to be sloppy? Or so easy you don't have to struggle with technology to get there? Or so easy that.... What?

How could it be too easy? Help me here: is it like "the cars might go too fast" or "the drivers may not be fully qualified"? Is it that people aren't ready to converse in such complex, interconnected ways?

I also wondered if you could elaborate on what you mean by "out of the box" networks (what would be "in the box," for instance). What was the old-fashioned way, seven years ago?

I don't think that the fact than nings make it easy in any way undermines the learning that can go on; I think that because they're easy to use--and can be learned intuitively--, well, that greatly accelerates learning. It's like it gets technology to drop into the background. The focus in on the discussions, not the mechanics of how to have a discussion. I've seen a number of groups go from semi-networked in cumbersome systems to fully networked within a ning, and the contrast is dramatic. The conversations go from flat, linear, call-and-response formats to constellations of thoughts leading out in many directions and back again. Networks seem to be very viable as learning habitats, holding infinite potential both for personal expression and for conversations. To me, the most powerful of all learning tools is a network that also emphasizes blogs--and all sorts of multi-media sharing. It's bliss: the best of all worlds. But that's just my opinion.

Ok, one more thing I have to say. It was you who launched me into 21st Century Learning once and for all, never to turn back. I'm deeply grateful to you, more than I can ever say. I saw you at the MACUL conference in Michigan, I think it was 3 years ago. At the time I was thinking of getting an additional masters degree in technology and human-information processing. My ears perked up when you said you can sign up for a graduate program to learn the stuff, or you can sign on to something your friend just developed, something called Classroom 2.0.

A long story short--Classroom 2.0 became my launching pad. I took off as a learner and teacher into worlds I never even imagined. I utterly transformed as a teacher--and as a learner and "person," all due to your advice to join into Steve's grand and visionary experiment. So thank you, thank you both--I wonder how many lives have transformed because of you--I'm guessing that the numbers are huge!!!